Partial Preterism – promotion, objections & relevance today.

[Yeshua1]

Yes, but it's all about keeping a proper balance.
An over-inaugurated eschatology would mean that one thinks more about Ephesians 2:6 than about Philippians 2:12 and would tend to antinomianism . An under-inaugurated eschatology would have us either sitting on a cliff-top waiting for Christ to come ( 2 Thessalonians 3:11) or trying to earn our salvation by works.

There was a theologian whose name escapes me who likened the situation of the Christian in the world to that of the allies in WW 2 after D-Day. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the allies were going to win; there were huge amounts of men and material going over to France, the German war machine was being bombed to blazes and the Russians were attacking on the Eastern front. On the other hand there were still terrible battles like Arnhem and the Bulge to be fought. So it is with us; we have read to the end of the book and we know who wins, but there are yet trials and grief that will face us before Christ comes again in victory. A proper inaugurated eschatology will have us confident and rejoicing, but also sober and wary.

Think that CS lLewis saw it in that fashion, as we know the Nazu will lose, but they still fight on to the bitter end!

Still find it hard to see the Great tribulation was AD 70, and that we are now after second coming!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God still will be giving them their land, as its His to give! jerusalem should be captital of israel as God intended!

Really.....we will see. Interesting that every Israeli I know could care less about Jerusalem....they wouldn't mind it being bombed into oblivion...its Tel Aviv they want to live & work in. Also, there is a ton of them that are atheist's. They resent the beards as they call them.

 

[Yeshua1]

Really.....we will see. Interesting that every Israeli I know could care less about Jerusalem....they wouldn't mind it being bombed into oblivion...its Tel Aviv they want to live & work in. Also, there is a ton of them that are atheist's. They resent the beards as they call them.

God viewpoint would be that Jerusalem is to be captial of Israel and the world one day!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

God viewpoint would be that Jerusalem is to be captial of Israel and the world one day!

Not according to the Israeli......like I said, they are atheist. You go talk to them.

 

[John of Japan]

Questions:

Should OC prophecy be understood literally?

...

Are the Church & Israel separate entities with different prophetic futures?

So what I get from this very long post and your lack of interaction is that you are blogging rather than debating. Correct?

Not that it is wrong to blog on the BB on debate threads.... But it would be nice if we knew that in the OP (opening post).

 

[Baptist Brother]

Why I am not a Preterist

1. I believe that the whole idea of an invisible coming of Christ is refuted by Acts 1:11.
The Jesus who will return will be the same Jesus who left, and He will return 'in like manner' to the way He left..

Acts 1:11 is not connected to any other eschatological verses. So, your jumping to conclusions that Preterits may not share, that Christ coming in like manner refers to events in the Olivet discourse and Revelation.

2. While some of Matthew 24 etc. clearly refers to AD 70, by no means all of it does.

Jesus is answering a question asked in Matthew 24:3. You must believe that Jesus wonders away from the question. Also, v.34, that bullet in the side of Futurism, says all these things will happen in the first century generation. All the things in one generation, not some in 70 AD and some in 20?? AD.

3. Verses which speak of disciples eagerly awaiting the return of Christ do not sit well with His coming in judgement on Jerusalem. In the light of Romans 9:3, why does Paul say 'Maranatha!' in 1 Cor. 15:22 if that coming means nothing but the destruction of thousands of Jews?

Have you read 1 Cor 15.22? If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. It seems to mean something like, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed, come judge him Lord." In your imagination, how does the word Maranatha relate to rest of the verse? In Dispensational theology, the Bible is full of random words and verse that don't fit the context. It's a really ridiculous way to read the Bible.

 

[kyredneck]

28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16

1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. Mk 9

27 But I tell you of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. Lk 9

The coming of the Son of man couldn't have been the transfiguration as it is still yet future in later passages, i.e., Lu 17, Mt 24, Acts 1, etc.

And besides, it's ridiculous for you to imply the Lord would actually be saying, "Some of you will not die within the next six days".

Of course it's future in those verses! It's still in the future today!

The passage is clearly describing a near advent. Your dogged insistence that His coming must be bodily, physical, and visible in no way changes that.

All I'm saying is that the Transfiguration was/is a much bigger thing than you allow for, and it is what our Lord was alluding to in Matt. 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27. In each case, the Transfiguration follows immediately.

I will admit that the Transfiguration may well have been the beginning of His coming into His kingdom, but by no means does it stop there.

I might add that Church history seems to be unanimous that of the Apostles, only John survived as long as AD 70, so perhaps the Lord Jesus should have said, "There is one standing here who will not see death till he sees the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." But then it seems that John was pastoring the church at Ephesus, and nothing places him at Jerusalem, so he wouldn't have seen it anyway.

'One' is 'some', and besides, there were almost certainly many more present than just 'the twelve', and Church History takes a far back seat to scripture, at least with me.

Not conclusive, but another nail in your preterist coffin, not that one is needed.

Maybe in your imagination.

Here's some comments on the passage from non-Preterist sources. Indeed, I question if any of them had ever heard the word 'Preterism':

Benson Commentary:
“….the disciples saw their Master coming in his kingdom, when they were witnesses of his transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension, and the miraculous gifts of his Spirit conferred upon them; and lived to see Jerusalem, with the Jewish state, destroyed, and the gospel propagated through the greatest part of the then known world.”

Elliot’s Commentary:
“….the meaning of the words “coming in His kingdom.” The solution of the problem is to be found in the great prophecy of Matthew 24. In a sense which was real, though partial, the judgment which fell upon the Jewish Church, the destruction of the Holy City and the Temple, the onward march of the Church of Christ, was as the coming of the Son of Man in His kingdom.”

Barnes Notes:
“…Son of man coming in his kingdom - Mark and Luke have explained this: Mark 9:1, "Until they have seen the kingdom of God come with power;" Luke 9:27, "Till they see the kingdom of God." The meaning evidently is, "till they shall see my kingdom," i. e., my church, now small, feeble, and despised, greatly enlarged, established, and spreading with great rapidity and extent. All this was accomplished. All these apostles, except Judas, lived to see the wonders of the day of Pentecost; some of them, John particularly, saw the Jewish nation scattered, the temple destroyed, the gospel established in Asia, Rome, Greece, and in a large part of the known world.”

JF&B
“…28. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here—"some of those standing here."
which shall not taste of death, fill they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom—or, as in Mark (Mr 9:1), "till they see the kingdom of God come with power"; or, as in Luke (Lu 9:27), more simply still, "till they see the kingdom of God." The reference, beyond doubt, is to the firm establishment and victorious progress, in the lifetime of some then present, of that new kingdom of Christ, which was destined to work the greatest of all changes on this earth, and be the grand pledge of His final coming in glory.”

Gill’s Exposition:
“…the appearance of his kingdom, in greater glory and power, upon his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to heaven; when the Spirit was poured down in an extraordinary manner, and the Gospel was preached all over the world; was confirmed by signs and wonders, and made effectual to the conversion and salvation of many souls; which many then present lived to see, and were concerned in: though it seems chiefly to have regard to his coming, to show his regal power and authority in the destruction of the Jews; when those his enemies that would not he should reign over them, were ordered to be brought and slain before him; and this the Apostle John, for one, lived to be a witness of.”

Expositor’s Greek Testament:
“…Christ’s speech was controlled not merely by His own thoughts but by the hopes of the future entertained by His disciples. He had to promise the advent of the Son of Man in His Kingdom or of the Kingdom of God in power (Mk.) within a generation…….The words of Jesus about the future provide for two possible alternatives: for a near advent and for an indefinitely postponed advent. His promises naturally contemplate the former ….”

Cambridge Bible for Schools:
“…St Matthew’s version of this “hard saying” indicates more plainly than the other Synoptic Gospels, the personal presence of Christ. St Mark has, “till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power;” St Luke, “till they see the kingdom of God;” but the meaning in each case is the same. Various solutions are given. The expression is referred to (1) the Transfiguration, (2) the Day of Pentecost, (3) the Fall of Jerusalem. The last best fulfils the conditions of interpretation—a judicial coming—a signal and visible event, and one that would happen in the lifetime of some, but not of all, who were present.”

Pulpit Commentary:
"…he now announces, with the formula used by him to present some revelation of Divine truth, that there was to be a coming of the Son of man at no very distant date. This advent is doubtless the destruction of Jerusalem, which, as it occurred only some forty years after this time, some of his auditors, apostles and the multitude, would live to behold.”

Drawn from: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-28.htm

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Thanks very much for replying to my posts, BB. I as beginning to wonder if anybody would.

Acts 1:11 is not connected to any other eschatological verses. So, your jumping to conclusions that Preterists may not share, that Christ coming in like manner refers to events in the Olivet discourse and Revelation.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. The angel's words are spoken immediately after our Lord's departure from the earth, which is, I suppose am eschatological event. The angel says that He will return in the same way as He left. I can see only one interpretation of these words, which is the one I have given. If you have another one, I will be pleased to know it. Otherwise, because it is so clear and simple, I continue to see Acts 1:11 as the refutation of the whole Preterist system.

Jesus is answering a question asked in Matthew 24:3. You must believe that Jesus wonders away from the question. Also, v.34, that bullet in the side of Futurism, says all these things will happen in the first century generation. All the things in one generation, not some in 70 AD and some in 20?? AD.

It seems to me that the disciples ask either two or three questions:
1. When will these things (the destruction of the Temple) be?
2. What will be the sign of Your coming? And possibly
3. What will be the sign of the end of the age? The last two may well be the same question.
I know that some think that the disciples could not conceive of the destruction of the temple without the age coming to and end. That may possible be so, but I don't know why they would have thought like that, Solomon's temple had been destroyed, and the second one had been desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes (also a lesser desecration by Pompey) and the world had continued.

So it does not surprise me that the Lord gives more than one answer to more than one question. Moreover, I really don't think that vs. 4-14 fit the 40 years between our Lord's death and resurrection and AD 70. The period up to AD 68 was part of the Pax Romana, a time of unparalleled peace. In AD 68, when rebellion broke out against Nero, the Lord Jesus would hardly have been telling the people of Jerusalem, "The end is not yet." Other things mentioned in those verses apply right through the current age.

One other thing: the Lord Jesus, and the NT as a whole, speak of only two ages: the present age and the age to come (eg. Matthew 12:32; Mark 10:30). In neither of these two examples does a new age starting in AD 70 work at all.

Have you read 1 Cor 15.22? If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. It seems to mean something like, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed, come judge him Lord." In your imagination, how does the word Maranatha relate to rest of the verse?

In exactly the way you have described. But tell me, how would the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of thousands of people there be a judgement upon someone in Corinth who didn't love the Lord?

In Dispensational theology, the Bible is full of random words and verse that don't fit the context. It's a really ridiculous way to read the Bible.

Proverbs 26:2 applies. I am not a Dispensationalist.

 

[kyredneck]

23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. Mt 10

As I pointed out before, whatever the text means, it cannot mean that it would take the disciples 40 years to go through the cities (not the villages) of Israel

Some more comments from non-Preterist sources:

Benson Commentary:
“….ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel — To preach the gospel in each of them, make what haste you will, until the Son of man shall come — To destroy their capital city, temple, and nation. The destruction of Jerusalem by Titus is often called the coming of the Son of man. See Matthew 24:27; Matthew 24:37; Matthew 24:39; Matthew 24:44; Luke 18:5.”

Barne’s Notes:
“…Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel ... - That is, in fleeing from persecutors from one city to another, you shall not have gone to every city in Judea until the end of the Jewish economy shall occur. See the notes at Matthew 24:28-30. By "the coming of the Son of Man," that is, of "Christ," is probably meant the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened about thirty years after this was spoken. The words are often used in this sense. See Matthew 24:30; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:27, Luke 21:32.”

JF&B:
“….Ye shall not have gone over—Ye shall in nowise have completed.
the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come—To understand this—as Lange and others do—in the first instance, of Christ's own peregrinations, as if He had said, "Waste not your time upon hostile places, for I Myself will be after you ere your work be over"—seems almost trifling. "The coming of the Son of man" has a fixed doctrinal sense, here referring immediately to the crisis of Israel's history as the visible kingdom of God, when Christ was to come and judge it; when "the wrath would come upon it to the uttermost"; and when, on the ruins of Jerusalem and the old economy, He would establish His own kingdom. This, in the uniform language of Scripture, is more immediately "the coming of the Son of man," "the day of vengeance of our God" (Mt 16:28; 24:27, 34; compare with Heb 10:25; Jas 5:7-9)—but only as being such a lively anticipation of His second coming for vengeance and deliverance. So understood, it is parallel with Mt 24:14 (on which see).”

Cambridge Bible For Schools:
“…till the Son of man be come] The passage in Luke 21, which is to a great extent parallel to this, treats of the destruction of Jerusalem; and no one who carefully weighs our Lord’s words can fail to see that in a real sense He came in the destruction of Jerusalem. That event was in truth the judgment of Christ falling on the unrepentant nation. In this sense the Gospel had not been preached to all the cities of Israel before Christ came.”

Drawn from: http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/10-23.htm

 

[Baptist Brother]

I might add that Church history seems to be unanimous that of the Apostles, only John survived as long as AD 70, so perhaps the Lord Jesus should have said, "There is one standing here who will not see death till he sees the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

[Personal attack edited]

Jesus should have said, "There is one standing here who will not see death till he sees the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Martin Marprelate, if Jesus meant the transfiguration six days later, before any of the Twelve died, shouldn't Jesus have said "Everyone standing here will not see death till he sees the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." [Personal attack edited]

Of course, those "standing here" is not limited to the Twelve. Also, none of the Twelve would have had an exception of an early death. If they reasoned about what Jesus said, they would have concluded 70 AD:

Some will not die, therefor some will die. Some/some=50/50. Let's call it an expectation that half of them will die before they see what Jesus is talking about. Jesus was about 30, as was his disciples, and probably most of the people standing there. They would have expected another 40 years of life, on average. Therefor they would have thought 40+30=70 to be in the ballpark.

In Preterist interpretation, the Bible comes together beautifully. [Personal attack edited]

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus should have said, "There is one standing here who will not see death till he sees the Son of Man coming in His kingdom. Martin Marprelate, if Jesus meant the transfiguration six days later, before any of the Twelve died, shouldn't Jesus have said "Everyone standing here will not see death till he sees the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

I answered this earlier. Nine of the twelve did die without seeing the Son of Man coming in His glory.
Next question.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some more comments from non-Preterist sources:

The fact that there are several commentators who disagree with me is noted.
However, I see no reason to alter my view. Acts 1:11 seems to be deterministic to me.
I'll come back to your first post as I have time, hopefully tomorrow. Thanks for your comments.

 

[Yeshua1]

I answered this earlier. Nine of the twelve did die without seeing the Son of Man coming in His glory.
Next question.

Welcome Martin, you now a Dispy, in that you reject Pretierism!

 

[Yeshua1]

The fact that there are several commentators who disagree with me is noted.
However, I see no reason to alter my view. Acts 1:11 seems to be deterministic to me.
I'll come back to your first post as I have time, hopefully tomorrow. Thanks for your comments.

Jesus will come back in a physical form, and all eyes shall see Him, and His appearance will end History as we know it! AD 70 did NONE of that!

 

[kyredneck]

Yeah, I actually peeked this time, and you are still just as uniformed as ever. I just taught a two week block on Dispensational Theology, and said almost none of this. You are setting up straw men (plural) where dispensational theology is concerned. There may be individuals on a popular level that are Zionists and all the rest of your accusations, but it is not a part of the theology--none of it was in my textbook by Ryrie except for Israel and the church being separate.

Oh no, I’m VERY informed, this is no straw man. I grew up in a staunch fundamental SB Church and was brainwashed as a young child with the ‘last days sensationalism of Dispensationalism’ preaching that always put the spotlight on Israel. I looked forward to these sermons and always paid attention, and was in awe as a child and teenager at the invincibility of those Jews, God’s chosen people, and if the U.S. was to remain in God’s favor it was imperative that we unconditionally support Israel. No, I’m very informed, I lived it, I experienced it. I think back on it now and see these were cheap quick and easy sermons designed to please with a ‘last days adrenaline rush’, and I know there were millions of other children other than me that were impressed in this same manner. It was this sort of sensationalistic preaching that brainwashed an entire generation and laid the groundwork for the success of the likes of Hal Lindsey, Tim Lahaye, Bullinger, Jenkins, Haggee and many others that have made out with filthy lucre from cheap sensationalism, corrupting the word of God and making merchandise of the flock.

I do not support theologically America sending all of that money to Israel, and Israel's treatment of the Palestinians (and certainly not the daily rockets from the Palestinians which a missionary friend tells me are being launched).

That’s good to know.

If you are familiar with the history of modern Israel, I also oppose the Irgun terrorism that was part of the founding of the modern nation.

I am very familiar with the history of modern Israel and have absorbed much writing on it. One of the best and latest out is Allison Weir’s ‘Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel’.

Israel is back in the land right now in a state of unbelief, meaning modern Israel is not the fulfillment of most of the prophecies.

That’s good to know. But there IS an angle from which modern Israel may well be the fulfillment of prophecy.

But yes, Israel and the church are separate in dispensationalism, as well as in historic premil and any other system that interprets the Bible literally.

Yea, I know, but that’s not what the scriptures say. There’s ‘literally’ NO distinction made between the two, the two have now been made one:

14 For he is our peace, who made both one, and brake down the middle wall of partition,
15 having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; that he might create in himself of the two one new man, so making peace; Eph 2

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice: and they shall become one flock, one shepherd. Jn 10

And the Spirit bade me go with them, making no distinction...Acts 11:12

and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. Acts 15:9

even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; Ro 3:22

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: Ro 9:12

For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek: for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich unto all that call upon him: Ro 10:12

where there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bondman, freeman; but Christ is all, and in all. Col 3:11

There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus. Gal 3:28

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink of one Spirit. 1 Cor 12:13

15 For neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as shall walk by this rule, peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God. Gal 6

2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the concision:
3 for we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh: Phil 3

And now I'll put you back on ignore where you belong because of your lousy and insulting attitude (not your theology). No hard feelings.

Ah, tell you what, I’ll try to mind my manners more if you’ll try to thicken that skin a little. No hard feelings here either.

(and viewing the thread without logging on is not peeking, is it?)

 

[kyredneck]

Acts 1:11 seems to be deterministic to me.

Yea, I know, and for the life of me I don't see the hill to die on that you do, at all.

Later.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yea, I know, and for the life of me I don't see the hill to die on that you do, at all.

Later.

When did Jesus come back in that same fashion?

 

[kyredneck]

When did Jesus come back in that same fashion?

'In like manner', the cloud hid Him out of their sight. Jibes with 'coming as a thief in the night'.

That interpretation carries more weight than Martin's and conforms with other scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

'In like manner', the cloud hid Him out of their sight. Jibes with 'coming as a thief in the night'.

That interpretation carries just as much weight as Martin's.

Same Jesus, same physical body, will return to earth, eyes shall see him, will not be an invisible event!

 

[kyredneck]

Same Jesus, same physical body, will return to earth, eyes shall see him, will not be an invisible event!

Physical, visible return at His NEXT coming (1 Cor 15) is a total non-issue with me. I don't care whether it be visible to all or not. But His kingdom came without observation in 1st century A.D..